, THIS IS THE DECEMBER 24th, 2025, ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING. MY NAME IS MATT PERRY, AND I AM CHAIR OF THIS BOARD. I WILL NOW CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER, AND ASK THE CLERK TO CALL THE ROLL SO THAT WE MAY VERIFY THE PRESENCE OF A QUORUM.
>> CALLAHAN IS ABSENT. EICHOLZ IKE. >> EICHOLZ. >> HERE. >> GRANS KORSH. >> HERE. >> HUTCHENS IS ABSENT. INGRAM. >> AYE. >> SMWANG.
>> HERE. >> CHAIR PERRY. >> HERE. >> THERE ARE FIVE MEMBERS PRESENT. >> WE DO HAVE QUORUM W. . WITH THAT WE'LL PROCEED TO OUR AGENDA A COPY OF WHICH WAS POSTED FOR PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE CITY'S LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AVAILABLE AT
LIMS.MINNEAPOLISMN.GOV. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT AMENDED, SO IF SOMEONE CAN MOVE TO AMEND THE AGENDA TO INCLUDES ITEM 11, WHICH WOULD BE ADOPTION OF THE 2026 TRANSITION CALENDAR.
>> SECOND.D. >> IT'S MOVED AND SECONDED. ALL IN FAVOR, INDICATE BY SAYING AYE. ANY AGAINST? ANY ABSTENTIONS? THAT PAS PASSES. SO THE AGENDA IS AMENDED AND NOW THERE IS A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA?
>> SO MOVED. >> SECOND. >> ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION T? SEEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR, INDICATE BY SAYING AYE. ANY AGAINST, INDICATE BY SAYING NAY. ANY ABSTENTIONS. AND THAT
MOTION PASSES HAVE AN APPROVED AGENDA. I BELIEVE ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE SEEN A COPY OF THE MINUTES FROM THE OCTOBER 30th, 2025, ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE? >> SO MOVED. >> SECOND. >> THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION
ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, INDICATE BY SAYING AYE. ALL AGAINST, INDICATE BY SAYING NAY. ANY ABSTENTIONS? IF YOU ARE NOT AT THE LAST MEETING, YOU SHOULD ABSTAIN. AND WITH THAT, THE
MOTION PASSES, SO WE HAVE THE MINUTES FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 30th, 2025, MEETING BEING APPROVED. A REMINDER TO APPLICANTS AND OTHERS THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO SPEAK AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, PLEASE SIGN IN ON THE SHEET
AVAILABLE FROM THE CLERK AND SPEAK CLEARLY INTO THE MICROPHONE. IF YOU HAVE NOT SIGN IN, YOU CAN DO SO ON THE WAY OUT. ALSO TO APPLICANTS AND OTHERS, PLEASE CONTACT STAFF AFTER THE HEARING WITH ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING YOUR
PROJECTS. AND I THINK BOARD MEMBER SM SMRIKAROVA AND WE HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING SO SHE CAN VOTE ON ALL ITEMS TO COME BEFORE US. QUICK NOTE THE CHAIR DOES NOT VOTE EXCEPT IN THE CASE
OF A TIE. LET'S LOOK AT THE DISPOSITION RECOMMENDATIONS FROM STAFF. AND IF YOU GIVE ME A MOMENT. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 4 IS
4155 41st AVENUE SOUTH. THIS HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED FOR CONTINUATION TO OUR NEXT CYCLE. AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT MORE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT CONTINUATIONS. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5 IS 326 HARVARD STREET
SOHEAST. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THIS ITEM FOR CONSENT. IS THERE ANYONE TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS ITEM? I SEE NO ONE. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 6 IS 231 52ND STREET SOUTHWEST.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THIS ITEM FOR CONSENT. IS THERE ANYONE TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS ITEM? I SEE NO ONE. GENDA ITEM NUMBER 7, THIS IS 2749 COLFAX AVENUE SOUTH, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THIS ITEM FOR CONSENT. IS THERE
ANYONE TO SPEAKGAINST THIS ITEM? AND THEN WE HAVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 8, WHICH IS 3906 YORK AVENUE SOUTH. THIS IS A DISCUSSION ITEM. AN AND
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 9 IS 5457 NICOLLET AVENUE, AND THIS IS ALSO A DISCUSSION ITEM. SO LET'S REVIEW THE ITEMS FOR CONSENT. THEY ARE 5, 6, AND 7. I WANT TO OPEN THE PUBLIC
HEARING AND SEE IF ANYBODYOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THESE ITEMS OR AGAINST THEM? SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE A MOTION TO ADOPT THESE ON THE CONSENT? >> SO MOVED. >> SECOND. >> AND THERE IS A SECOND. ALL
IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, INDICATE BY SAYING AYE. ANY AGAINST, INDICATE BY SAYING NAY. ANY ABSTENTIONS. THAT MOTION PASSES. SO IF YOU ARE HERE FOR ITEMS 5, 6, OR 7, YOUR LAND USE
REQUESTS ARE APPROVED. GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECT AND THANKS FOR COMING DOWNTOWN.
LET'S RETURN TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 4 FOR CONTINUANCE. THIS IS 4155 41st STREET AVENUE SOUTH. CAN STAFF GIVE A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF WHY THE
CONTINUANCE IS BEING REQUESTED? >> [OFF MIC] MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, YES, SO THIS CAME AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT, SO THERE ARE A PAIR OF VARIANCES AT PLAY HERE FOR 4155 41st AVENUE SOUTH. I'M LOOKING AT MAXIMUM LOT COVER AND
MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WE HEARD BACK FROM THE APPLICANTS EARLIER TODAY THAT TH HAD BEEN TOUCH WITH SOME OF THE NEIGHBOR PROPERTY OWNERS THAT HAD SOMECO THEY HAD REQUESTED A CONTINUATION FOR ONE MEETING CYCLE SO THAT THEY CAN CONTINUE TO WORK ON THAT FEEDBACK AND
POTENTIALLY MODIFY THE PLANS TO FI SOMETHING OF A COMPROMISE SOLUTION THAT WORKS BETTER FOR THOSE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS. WE DID HAVE A LOT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED THROUGH THE WRITTEN FORM BEFORE THIS. STAFF REALLY DOESN'T HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH THAT CONTINUATION AND KIND OF WORKING TOWARDS THAT COMPROMISE SOLUTION. ONE THING
I WILL NOTE IS THAT BECAUSE OF THE 6120 DAY ROLE IN TERMS OF MINNESOTA STATUTE FOR ISSUING A DECISION ON AN ITEM WE DID RECEIVE FURTHER EXTENSION T MARCH 21st JUST IN CASE THIS
WENT TO POTENTIAL POs AND BHC WE WOULD HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO RENDER THAT FULL DECISION. AGAIN I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND STAND FOR THE BOARD MEMBERS. I WILL ALSO NOTE IF WE HAVE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO CAME HERE TONIGHT TO SPEAK, I PLAN TO MAKE MYSELF AVAILABLE IN THE HALLWAY AFTER THIS ITEM JUST TO DIRECT CONTACT
INFORMATION AND TALK ABOUT THAT NEXT CYCLE OF MEETING. >> VERY GOOD. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. CAMPBELL? I SEEONE. THANK YOU. SO DID ANYBODY COME DOWN TO SPEAK FOR
FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM? I SEE NO ONE. SO LET'S DO -- LET'S DO THIS. IS THERE A MOTION TO THE CONTINUE THE LAND USE REQUEST? >> SO MOVED. >> IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> IT'S MOVED AND SECONDED. WHY
DON'T WE TAKE A ROLL CALL ON THIS. >> FOR THE CONTINUATION OF ITEM 4, EICHOLZ. >> AYE. >> GRANS KORSH. >> AYE. >> INGRAHAM.
>> AYE. >> SMIRAKAROVA. >> AYE. >> WONG. >> THERE ARE F FIVE AYES. >> GREAT. THERE IS ONE THING I WANT TO ASK STAFF IF YOU CAN HELP ME OUT WITH THIS, WE HAVE NOT YET APPROVED AN AGENDA, AND
WE HAD THIS ITEM CONTINUED TO SOMETHING. WHAT DATE SHOULD IT BE CONTINUED TO SINCE WE DON'T HAVE AN APPROVED TRANITION CALENDAR YET? >> CHAIR PERRY, MEMBERS OF THE
BOARD, WE'LL BE ADOPTING THE CALENDAR, THE TRANSITIONAL CALENDAR HERE SOON. PRESUMABLY THAT WILL BE JANUARY 15th. I THINK WITH THE WAY THINGS ARE GOING RIGHT NOW AND THE COUNCIL -- AND THE CALENDAR NOT FORMALLY ADOPTED AS OF YET, WE CAN JUST SAY TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT, AND THAT WOULDSUFFI. >> CAN WE DO THAT NOW? >> THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. >> DO WE HAVE TO HAVE IT BE A MOTION? >> THE MOTION WOULD BE WHAT WE JUST VOTED ON. >> OKAY. THAT'S FINE. GREAT. THANK YOU. LET'S MOVE ONTO OUR
FIRST ITEM TO BE HEARD. AND THAT IS ITEM 8. 3906 YORK
AVENUE SOUTH. WELCOME.
>> THANK YOU. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR PERRY,
BOARD MEMBERS. THE APPLICATION BEFORE YOU IS LOCATED AT 3906 YORK AVENUE SOUTH, AND THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF A PRIVACY FENCE IN THE CORNER SIDE YARD
FROM FOUR FEET TO SIX FEET. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS A 15,126 SQUARE FOOT CORNER LOT WITH AN EXTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH ATTACHED GARAGE. THE
APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A SIX-FOOT TALL PRIVACY FENCE FROM THE DRIVEWAY OF THE PROPERTY UP TOWARDS THE YORK AVENUE SIDE -- THANK YO
>> COULD I REQUEST IT BE MAGNIFIED A LITTLE BIT MORE?
THANK YOU. >> I CAN'T SEE WHAT YOU SEE, SO.
YOU GOOD? OKAY. SO THEAPPLICAE FROM THE DRIVEWAY UP TOWARDS YORK AVENUE AND ALONG THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION IS REALLY JUST FOCUSING ON THE CORNER SIDE
YARD, SO WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT PIECE THERE. THE REST OF THE FENCE IS ALLOWED AT SIX-FOOT HEIGHT. SO, SO THE DRIVEWAY ALONG 39th STREET TO THE FRONT OF THE DWELLING ON YORK AVENUE.
THE FENCE HEIGHT ORDINANCE LIMITS THE FENCE IN THE CORNER SIDE YARD TO FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT IF OPAQUE OR SIX FEET IF OPEN AND DECORATIVE WHERE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT IS ONLY AUTHORIZED AS FAR FORWARD AS NECESSARY TO ENCLOSE AN ENTRANCE FACING THE CORNER
YARD, WHICH THERE IS AN ENTRANCE HERE, WHICH IS WHY SOME OF THE FENCE IS ALLOWED AT SIX FEET. PORTIONS OF THE FENCE COMPLY WITH THE SIX-FOOT HEIGHT REQUIREMENT BY ENCLOSING AN ENTRANCE. HOWEVER, ROUGHLY 30 FEET OF THE PROPOSED FENCE
EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT. WHEN ANALYZING VARIANCE, SEVERAL FINDINGS MUST BE MET. STAFF FINDS THAT THE CHALLENGES DO NOT EXIST IN COMPLYING WITH THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE OF CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY. THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE REGULATING
FENCE HEIGHT IS TO ENCOURAGE AN AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT, ALLOW FOR PRIVACY WHILE MAINTAINING ACCESS TO LIGHT AND AIR. AND TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE. ZONING REQUIREMENTS FOR MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT ARE MOST STRICT IN REQUIRED 41 YARDS AND THESE ARE
PUBLIC -- ONT YARDS AND THESE ARE PUBLIC FACING PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY, AS THESE ARE, WHICH ARE INTENDED TO ALLOW THE MOST VISIBILITY TO AND FROM THE PROPERTY. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A SIX-FOOT SOLID FENCE THAT EXTENDS SIGNIFICANTLY BEYOND THE POINT NEEDED TO ENCLOSE THE SIDE ENTRANCE, WHICH
IS NOT IN KEEPING WITH THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE REGULATING FENCE HEIGHT. THIS FINDING IS NOT MET. IF GRANTED, THE PROPOSED VARIANCE MAYE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY, OR WELFARE OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC OR OF THOSE UTILIZING THE PROPERTY OR
NEARBY PROPERTIES. THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE PRESENTS A SIGHTLINE ISSUE FOR VEHICLES EXITING THE ADJACENT DRIVEWAY, WHO ARE NOT ABLE TO SEE PEDESTRIANS APPROACHING ON THE SIDEWALK. THIS IS FINDING IS NOT MET. WITH THAT, STAFF
RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THIS REQUESTED VARIANCE, AND I WILL STAND FOR QUESTIONS. >> THANKS FOR THE PRESENT OPTION. DO -- DO PEOPLE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? YES? >> I JUST WANT A CLARIFICATION ON THIS. THERE IS A PHOTO SHOWN
IN THE APPLICATION WHERE AT ALMOST LIKE LOOKS LIKE IT'S SIX FEET AND THEN JUMPS TO FOUR FEET. IS THAT JUST BECAUSE THE FENCE WASN'T BUILT AND THIS IS A PARTIALLY BUILT PHOTO? >>> CORRECT. THE FENCE IS PARTIALLY BUILT. >> OKAY. SO, SO IT IS ALREADY
EXISTING AT SIX FEET RIGHT BY THAT DRIVEWAY, WHICH DOES PRESENT A HAZARD FOR PEOPLE, OKAY? >> YES, BOARD MEMBER. >> THANK YOU F FOR THE PRESENT >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I SEE NONE. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL
LIKELY HAVE YOU UP AGAIN. I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLICHEARINGE HOW THIS WORKS. WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING I OPEN IT UP AND THE APPLICANT SPEAKS FIRST. THEY HAVE 10 MINUTES. CAN STAFF RUN
THE CLOCK FOR 10 MINUTES? OKAY? SO YOU HAVE 10 MINUTES TO MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION, AND THEN OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE SUPPORTIVE GET TO SPEAK FOR TWO MINUTES, AND THEN PEOPLE WHO ARE
OBJECTING GET TO SPEAK FOR TWO MINUTES. AND THEN I CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN THE BOARD MAKES DECISIONS OR MAKES MOTIONS AND MAKES DECISIONS. SO IF YOU COULD GIN YO GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, FIRST. >> SURE. I'M JUST LETTING THIS
COME UP. >> OKAY. >> SO GOOD AFTERNOON TO YOU, CHAIRMAN, AND BOARD MEMBERS AND THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US TO COME AND PRESENT OUR REQUEST DIRECTLY TO YOU THIS AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS PATRICK HARRDEN. I'M ONE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS
AND ALONG WITH ME IS DORY NIVER. SHE IS THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS. WE HAPPEN TO BE FIANCES BUT THAT'S BESIDES THE POINT. WE'RE APPLICANTS TOGETHER. I'M PRESENTING ON OUR BEHALF, AND WE'LL TRY TO GET OUR, MY THING
UP HERE INUST A SECD. SO WE
ARE ASKING AS FATIMA INDICATED TO BUILD A FENCE AT SIX FOOT VERSUS THE ORDINANCE WHICH STATES A MAXIMUM OF FOUR FOOT. AND SPECIFICALLY AS FATIMAT WAS
KIND OF SHOWING ON THE DRAWING THAT SHE HAD UP THERE, WE ARE ALLOWED FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND IN THE ORDINANCE TO BUILD THE FENCE UP TO THE FRONT EDGE OF A DOORWAY, WHICH WE HAVE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE,
AND STEVE WEGMAN WAS THERE AND SAID I WAS WITH WITHIN THE ORDINANCE UP TO THAT POINT. THEN FROM THAT POINT, GOING FORWARD WE WANT TO ADD 24 FEET OF SIX-FOOT FENCE GOING TOWARDS
YORK AVENUE AND THEN TYING BACK TOWARDS THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, WHICH IS ABOUT ANOTHER 30 FEET GOING BACK IN THAT DIRECTION. SO THAT'S THE SPECIFICS OF WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING. I DO HAVE A
SLIDE HERE SHOWING THE PROPERTY AS IT WAS WHEN WE PURCHASED IT. WE BOUGHT IT IN AUGUST OF 2023, AND AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THIS AERIAL VIEW ON THE TOP PHOTO, THERE IS THE HOUSE WAS BUILT TO
THE SOUTH AND WEST OF THE LOT, MAKING THE BACKYARD QUITE SMALL, BUT ENHANCING THE SIDE YARD AREA AS THE OUTDOOR SPACE THAT IS AVAILABLE FOR RECREATION AND ENTERTAINMENT IN OUR, ON OUR
PROPERTY. SO THOSE ARE SOME KEY POINTS THAT WE WANTED TO POINT OUT. IN THE LOWER PHOTOGRAPH, THAT HOW THE PROPERTY EXISTED WHEN WE PURCHASED IT.THERE WAS A SWIMMING POOL, A SWIMMING POOL FENCE, THERE WAS A TRAMPOLINE,
AND THEN THERE WAS ABOUT A SEVEN-FOOT TALL HEDGE THAT WENT THWAY TO THE FRONT OF THE LOT AND ALL THE WAY ALONG 39th AND ALL THE WAY ALONG THE DRIVEWAY THAT WAS THERE, SO THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE WHEN WE BOUGHT
IT. WE HAVE DONE SOME CHANGES. THIS IS AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY FROM THIS SUMMER. OBVIOUSLY NOT ANY SNOW ON THE GROUND AT THE TIME. WE HAVE REMOVED THE POOL AS YOU CAN SEE. WE'VE REMOVED THE TRAMPOLINE. WE'VE REMOVED THE POOL SECURITY FENCE, AND WE'VE REMOVED THE
HEDGE TO OPEN UP THAT WHOLE SIDE YARD SIGNIFICANTLY. AND THEN WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS TO ADD, AS I SAID IN THE OPENING, ABOUT
24 FEET OF FENCING ALONG THIS SIDE OF THE PROPERTY GOING FROM THE DOOR FORWARD DOWN 39th STREET AND THEN TYING ABOUT 30 FEET BACK TO THE HOUSE. SO
THAT, THAT'S THE SPECIFICS OF THE VARIANCE THAT WE'RE REQUESTING. SO THE OTHER THING I WOULD COMMENT ON WHILE LOOKING AT THIS SLIDE IS THAT WHOLE AREA
IN THE FRONT O THE YARD THAT USED TO BE ENCLOSED WITH A FENCE AND ABOUT A SEVEN-FOOT HIGH HEDGE, WE'RE LEAVING THAT COMPLETELY OPEN SO THAT IT DOES CREATE A MUCH MORE OPEN SPACE THERE D MUCH MORE VISIBILITY
AT THAT BUSY INTERSECTION OF YORK AND 39th STREET. SO WE THINK WE'VE IMPROVED THE SAFETY SITUATION THERE FOR PEDESTRIANS AND VEHICLES BECAUSE THE CORNER HAS A MUCH GREATER VISIBILITY.
SPECIFIC TO THE PAGE 8 OF THE GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION, WE HAVE IN THE DOCUMENTS THAT I BELIEVE YOU ALL HAVE SPOKEN TO THESE THINGS, BUT THE OVERALL
CHALLENGE THAT WE HAVE WITH THE ORDINANCE AND WHY WE'RE REQUESTING THE VARIANCE IS THAT THAT SIDE YARD IS OUR OUTDOOR SPACE. IT'S NOT AT ALL PRIVATE AS IT SITS TODAY. MANY CARS GO
BY EVERY DAY, A LOT OF PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC, AND A LOT OF PEOPLE LOOKING IN AT US AT, YOU KNOW, AT ALL TIMES, AND WE WANT TO CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT THAT IS SAFER AND MORE PRIVATE AND TO REDUCE THE NOISE FROM THE
TRAFFIC THAT'S GOING BY. SO THAT'S OUR REASON FOR REQUESTING THE VARIANCE. IT IS NOT BASED ON ANY ECONOMICS. THE PROPERTY VALUE DOESN'T CHANGE I DON'T THINK EITHER WAY. SO WE'RE NOT
LOOKING TO DO THIS TO GAIN SOME ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE SECOND ITEM THE APPLICATION, THE PROPERTY OWNERS, AUTHORIZED APPLICANTS THAT WE USE IT IN A REASONABLE
MANNER AND IN KEEPING WITH THE ORDINANCE, SO WE'RE BUILDING A FENCE WHICH YOU'LL SEE A PICTURE OF IT LITTLE BIT LATER THAT IS AESTHETICALLY PLEASING AND IN KEEPING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ENVIRONMENT, AND IT'S, IT HAS THE SAME LOOK AND FEEL AS MANY
FENCES AROUN THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE WE'R ASKING FOR IT TO BE TWO FEET TALLER, THAT'S WHY WE'VE ASKED THE VARIANCE. AND IN ADDITION TO THE FENCE, WE'RE WANTING TO BUILD A PATIO OUT THERE WHERE WE CAN HAVE AN OUTDOOR COOKING SPACE A FIRE
PIT, AND BE OUTDOORS THERE AND ENTERTAIN FRIENDS AND FAMILY IN THAT SPACE. THE PROPOSED, YOU KNOW, THE VARIANCE, WE DON'T THINK IT DOES ANYTHING INJURIOUS
TO THE ENVIRONMENT OR T PROPERTY OF ANY OF OUR NEIGHBORS. IT'S AESTHETICALLY IN KEEPING WITH THE AREA. WE'LL SHOW YOU SOME PICTURES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN A MOMENT. IT DOESN'T ERODE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR IMP
IMPINGE ON OUR NEIGHBORS' ENJOYMENT. WE'VE ALL -- ALL OF OUR NEIGHBORS ARE INFORMED AND A LOT OF THEM CHECKED IN WITH US TO SEE WHAT WE WE ASKING FOR AND THEY'RE IN SUPPORT OF US. NO ONE HAS -- I DON'T THINK ANYONE'S HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST
IT, AND NOTHING ABOUT THE FENCE WE DON'T BELIEVE CREATES ANY KIND OF HAZARD OR IMPINGEMENT ON OTHER PEOPLE'S SAFETY OR WELFARE. THIS IS A PICTURE OF ME BY THE FENCE THAT'S IN THE BACKYARD WITH MY SIX-FOOT POLE,
WHICH BECOMES RELEVANT ON THESE FOLLOWING SLIDES. THIS IS PICTURES FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS IS AT 39th AND YORK ON A CORNER LOT. THIS HOUSE HAS A LITTLE B MORE THAN SIX-FOOT FENCE THAT COMES ALL THE WAY TO
THE FRONT OF THEIR HOUSE THAT IS THERE THAT SEEMS TO BE AESTHETICALLY FINE, BUT I GUESS IT WOULD BE OUTSIDE THE ORDINANCE UNLESS THEY GOT A VARIANCE. RIGHT DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THAT ON THE SAME
CORNER ON 40th BLOCK OF YORK, ANOTHER FENCE THAT'S ALSO SIX-FEET TALL. IT CES NOT ALL THE WAY TO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, BUT MORE THAN HALFWAY TOWARDS THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, SO THEY SEEM TO HAVE DAKOTA
FENCE BUILT THAT ONE. I'M NOT SURE IF THERE WAS A VARIANCE OR A PERMIT OR WHATEVER, BUT THAT FENCE IS THERE. AND THIS ONE IS AT AT THE CORNER OF ZENITH AND 39th. THEIR FENCE COMES ABOUT 18 FEET INTO THE FRONT YARD.
IT'S SIX FOOT TALL, AND IT IS, YOU KNOW, RIGHT UP THE STREET FROM WHERE WE ARE. HERE IS ANOTHER ONE AT 39th AND SHERATON WHERE THEY HAVE A SIX-FOOT TALL FENCE THAT GOES TO THE FRONT OF THEIR HOUSE. ALSO
PAST THEIR DRIVEWAY. SAME THING AT THE CORNER DIRECTLY OPPOSITE OF THAT HOUSE, THAT 40th AND SHERATON THEY HAVE A FIVE-FOOT FENCE THAT GOES ACROSS THEIR DRIVEWAY UP THE STREET AND BACK TO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. AND THEN FINALLY, THIS ONE AT ABOUT
SIX FEET AT 42nd AND SHERATON. SO WE'RE, WE FEEL THAT WE'RE IN KEEPING WITH THE AESTHETIC OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE'RE REQUESTING THAT YOU APPROVE OUR VARIANCE REQUEST.
THANK YOU FOR HEARING ME. >> SURE. THANKS, THANKS FOR THE PRESENTATION. ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPL APPLICANT? >> THANKS. YOU'VE DONE A REALLY GOOD JOB OF PRESENTING YOUR CASE. BUT I AM CURIOUS, IN THE INFORMATION THAT YOU GAVE US, OF
THE FOUR HOUSES THAT YOU HAD, TWO OF THEM WERE LIKE A FIVE-FOO FENCE, THEN WITH A ONE OR 18-INCH ABOVE IT SEE-THROUGH LATTICE WORK. AND ANOTHER ONE OF THE SIX FEET THAT YOU JUST SHOWED NOW, YOU COULD SEE
THROUGH THE SLATS. SO IT WAS ALMOST CONSIDERED SEMITRANSPARENT. SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, WHAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH DOING A FOUR-FOOT SOLID AND THEN DOING THE TRANSPARENT PIECE COMPONENT AT THE TOP? BECAUSETE
IT'S NOT JUST SAFETY -- THERE IS A CONCERN FOR PEOPLE WALKING BY AND NOT BEING ABLE TO SEE ACROSS INTO THE YARD AND STUFF, AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR NEED FOR PRIVACY, BUT OF THE EXAMPLES THAT YOU SHOWED THAT AT LEAST THAT WERE IN THE PACKET, THREE OF THE FOUR YOU COULD SEE
THROUGH, AND YOU'RE SHOWING A VERY SOLID OPAQUE PIECE. AND SO I'M QUESTIONING WHY COULDN'T YOU DO WHAT THREE OUT OF THE FOUR THAT YOU SHOWED DID? >> WELL, OUR SPECIFIC REASONING FOR WANTING THE SOLID FENCE IS
THAT WE HAVE UNLIKE MOST OF THE REST OF THE PROPERTIES THAT I SHOWED, WE HAVE A VERY BUSY STREET THERE WITH A LOT OF VEHICLE TRAFFIC AND NOISE. AND THE SOLID FENCE WILL TEND TO BUFFER US FROM THAT NOISE BETTER
THAN AN OPAQUE FENCE AT THE TOP. SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE SPECIFICALLY ASKING FOR THAT. AND YOU KNOW, TO A DEGREE, THE PEOPLE WALKING BY WE FEEL LIKE IT'S OUR PRIVATE
PROPERTY, AND THAT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE THEM NOT SEE INTO OUR YARD. I'M NOT SURE WHY IT WOULD BE OF ANYBODY'S INTEREST TO GAWK INTO O YARD, AND THEY CAN SEE INTO OUR HOUSE AND INTO OUR YARD, AND IT DOESN'T IMPINGE
ON ANYBODY'S SAFETY OR WELL-BEING IF THEY CAN'T LOOK IN OUR YARD I DON'T THINK. SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR THE SOLID FENCE THOUGH. FOR BOTH THOSE REASONS. >> OTHER QUESTIONS I CAN ANSWER?
>> YEAH, YOU KNOW, I ACTUALLY DRIVE DOWN 39th EVERY SINGLE DAY. >> YES. >> AND I HAVE WATCHED THIS FENCE DEVELOP. YOUR HOUSE IS NOT THE ONLY HOUSE ON 39th THAT'S AS
THE KIND OF CONFIGURATION YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. >> SORRY? >> YOUR HOUSE DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING UNIQUE ABOUT IT IN TERMS OF THE CONFIGURATION ON IT THAT ANY OFTHAN ANY
OTHER OF THE HOUSES. >> IT -- >> SO THAT'S MY OBSERVATI. >> OKAY. >> AND I DON'T THINK FROM MY PERSPECTIV YOU'VE REALLY MADE THE CASE WHAT IS UNIQUE ABOUT YOUR PROPERTY. >> WELL, MY --
>> AND IF YOU, KNOW HOW WE'RE COMING FROM, WE HAVE THESE THREE LEGAL FINDINGS, AND ONE OF THEM IS THERE'S A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY THAT YOU CAN'T USE YOUR PROPERTY IN A WAY THAT THERE IS SOMETHING ABOUT THE CODE IS MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO
USE YOUR PROPERTY. >> YEAH OUR CONTENTION IS BECAUSE OUR HOUSE IS BUILT TO THE SOUTH AND WEST LIMITING THE BACKYARD. THERE IS NOT MUCH OF A BACKYARD AT ALL, WHEREAS MOST PEOPLE HAVE A BACKYARD TO ENJOY, WE HAVE VERY LITTLE. SO THIS
SIDE YARD REALLY IS THE OUTDOOR SPACE, AND THAT'S WHAT WE THINK MAKES OUR PROPERTY SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT THAN ANYONE ELSE. OR OTHERS, NOT ANYONE ELSE BUT OTHERS. AND THAT WE'RE ON A
BUSIER STREET THAN MANY, I MEAN, NOT EVERY STREET IN MINNEAPOLIS IS AS BUSY AS 39th. IT'S A VERY -- >> NO, I WAS TELLING -- WHEN I WAS SPEING, I WAS SPEAKING ABOUT 39th STREET SPECIFICALLY. >> YEAH, YEAH. . >> CAN YOU ADDRESS THE SAFETY
ISSUE THAT STAFF BROUGHT UP? >> YEAH. SO I TRAVEL QUITE A BIT. I'M GONE A LOT. DORY'S HOME ALONE, AND A IT SITS TODAY, PEOPLE WALK BY FREQUENTLY AND THEY'RE STARING INTO OUR HOUSE, AND THEY SEE HER THERE
ALONE OR I SHE'S SITTING OUT IN THE SIDE YARD BY HERSELF, IT JUST EXPOSES HER SOMEWHAT TO PEOPLE KNOWING THAT SHE'S THERE, A FEMALE ALONE AND SHE MENTIONED
THAT THAT GIVES HER SOME DISCOMFORT, AND IN BEING OUT OR VISIBLE IN THE HOUSE EVEN WHEN PEOPLE ARE WALKING BY LOOKING IN. >> HOW ABOUT THE STAFF BROUGHT UP LINE OF SIGHT BEING OBSCURED BY THE SIX-FOOT VERSUS THE
FOUR? >> SAY THAT AGAIN? >> THE STAFF BROUGHT UP THAT THE LINE OF SIG WAS OBSCURED FROM YOUR DRIVEWAY TO THE STREET BY IT GOING UP AN ADDITIONAL TWO FEET. >> ALONG THE DRIVEWAY ALREADY AT
LEAST ACCORDING TO STEVE, WEGMAN, WE HAVE ALREADY BUILT THE SIX-FOOT FENCE THERE BECAUSE HE SAID THAT WAS LEGITIMATE ALL THE WAY UP INTO THE FRONT EDGE
OF THE SIDE DOOR, SO I'M NOT SURE, YOU KNOW, IT DOES CREATE A LITTLE BIT OF A, A BLIND SPOT BY THE DRIVEWAY, BUT THE SEVEN-FOOT
HEDGE THAT WAS THERE FOR DECADES HAD THE SAME EFFECT, AND WE DON'T THINK WE'RE CREATING ANY, YOU KNOW, UNSAFE SITUATION THERE THAT ISN'T, YOU KNOW, PRESENT ELSEWHERE AND THAT WE'VE ACTUALLY OPENED UP THE WHOLE FRONT SO THAT IT'S EASIER FOR
PEOPLE TO SEE ON THAT BUZZY CORNER. >> YEAH. I'LL JUST SAY CRAZY AS IT MAY SEEM, WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH A HEDGE IS NOT THE SAME THING YOU CAN DO WITH A FENCE ACCORDING TO THE CODE. >> UNDERSTOOD. JUST VISUALLY THOUGH, I UNDERSTAND THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO. >> I GET YOUR POINT. >> BUT IF YOU ARE LINE OF SIGHT WISE, IT'S THE HGE OBSCURES THE LINE OF SIGHT EQUALLY AS MUCH AS A FEN I WOULD IN MY OPINION. >> I SEE. OKAY. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS? I DON'T SEE ANY. SOMEONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. >> YEAH, HI. I'M JUST THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNER. >> YEAH, SO IF YOU WANT TO COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE. >> SURE. . >> GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. >> YEAH, DORY NIVER AND ALSO LIVING AT 3906 YORK AVENUE. >> OKAY. >> OKAY.
>> I JUST, JUST TO CLARIFY ON THAT SIX-FOOT WHERE IT'S BUILT ALONG THE DRIVEWAY, THAT'S WITHIN THE ORDINANCE, AND YOU KNOW, WAS GIVEN, YOU KNOW, APPROVAL BY STEVE WN HE WAS THERE THAT, SO THE PART THAT YOU'RE SPEAKING TO THAT MHT
IMPEDE THE LINE OF SIGHT IS AN APPROVED PART OF THE FENCE. HE ADDITIONAL SIX FEET IS MUCH FARTHER DOWN THE FENCE THAT WE'RE REQUESTING OR THE ADDITIONAL TWO FEET. SO. >> CAN I -- CAN I HAVE STAFF,
CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION. ON FINDING NUMBER 3, WHAT PART WERE YOU SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE FENCE BEING PROBLEMATIC? >> THAT, CHAIR PERRY, THAT
ACTUALLY IS THE PART OF THE FENCE THAT I WAS SPEAKING TO, BUT IT IS ALLOWED BY CODE. >> OKAY. >> SO THAT IS AN ERROR ON MY PART. >> OKAY. GOOD. JUST WANT TO CLEAR THAT UP. >> THANK YOU. >> GREAT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> I DON'T THINK THERE ARE. THANKS FOR THE PRESENTATION. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HEARING
US. I REALLY APPRECIATE IT. >> YEAH. ABSOLUTELY. >> THANK YOU. >> OKAY. DOES ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO SPEAK IN FAVOR? HOW ABOUT SPEAKING AGAINST? I SEE NO ONE. LET'S CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
BOARD COMMENT? YEP? >> SOMHING THAT BOARD MEMBER GRANS KORSH MENTIONED EARLIER IS THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE AND THE OPACITY ON TOP, AND I TEND TO AGREE WITH HER BECAUSE WE'RE NOT HERE TO REDESIGN WHAT THIS SHOULD LOOK LIKE, BUT I THINK
THAT MAKES THE MOST SENSE, SO I ACTUALLY WANT -- I AGREE WITH STAFF FINDINGS. I STILL HAVEN'T HEARD A REASON OF WHY -- SORRY, I LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT, BUT I'LL JUST END IT WITH I AGREE
WITH STAFF FINDINGS. >> THANKS FOR THOSE COMMENTS. YES. MR. INGRAHAM. >> THANKS, CHAIR PERRY. I THINK THAT WAS AS GOOD OF A CASE AS YOU COULD MAKE FOR THAT LOT, AND I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S ENOUGH, SO I ALSO AGREE WITH STAFF FINDINGS.
>> ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? OH, YES. MR. ELLIS. >> CHAIR PERRY, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, I'M THOUGHT SURE WHEN WE TALK AN ADDITIONAL PART ON TOP OF THE FENCE WHEREEXACTLG ABOUT THAT. NOTE THAT IN A REQUIRED CORNER SIDE YARD THAT THEY ARE LIMITED TO FOUR FEET
TOTAL REGARDLESS OF THAT DESIGN AND HAVE TO BE OPEN. SO A I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THEY COULDN'T HAVE A FOUR-FOOT PORTION THAT IS ENCLOSED AND TWO FOOT ON TOP. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY IN CASE THERE IS ANY CONFUSION ON THAT. >> CAY, OKAY. THANK YOU. YES? >> SECOND THAT.
>> WHAT? >> I SECOND THAT. >> OH. >> MOTION. >> WE HAVE -- DO WE HAVE A MOTION? >> I THOUGHT HE SAID HE MOVED STAFF FINDINGS? >> I DN'T MOVE STAFF FINDINGS, BUT I WILL MOVE STAFF FINDINGS. [LAUGHTER] >> I SECOND THATOTION. >> OKAY. IT'S MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY OTHER FURTHER
DISCUSSION? WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? >> EICHOLZ. >> AYE. >> GRANS KORSH. >> RELUCTANTLY AYE BECAUSE I JUST DISLIKE THIS SIX-FOOT RULE, BUT IT'S THE RULE.
>> INGRAHAM. >> AYE. >> SMIRAKOVA. >> AYE. >> WANG. >> AYE. >> THERE ARE FIVE AYES. >> SO YOUR REQUEST IS DENIED. YOU CAN SEE STAFF ABOUT WHAT YOUR OPTIONS ARE GOING FORWARD.
YOU HAVE OPTIONS AND Y CAN SEE STAFF ABOUT WHAT THOSE ARE. APPRECIATE YOU COMING DOWN.
STAFF MEMBER OLUKOGA, Y'RE UP AGAIN AND THIS IS FOR 5457
NICOLLET AVENUE. >> GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN, CHAIR PERRY, BOARD MEMBERS. THE
APPLICATION BEFORE YOU IS LOCATED AT 5457 NICOLLET AVENUE AND THE APPLINT IS SEEKING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN INCREASE IN THE MAXIMUM SIZE ALLOCATION FROM 54 SQUARE FEET TO 66.67
SQUARE FEET. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF DIAMOND LAKE ROAD AND NICOLLET AVENUE IN SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS AND HAS AN AREA OF OVER 16,000 SQUARE FEET. IT IS IMPROVED WITH A MULTI-TENANT
COMMERCIAL BUILDING. THE APPLICANTS ARE PROPOSED TO INSTALL THREE SIGNS AT THE SITE FOR A BUSINESS THAT WILL OCCUPY BOTH 5457 AND 5459 NICOLLET AVENUE. THE FIRST PROPOSED SIGN IS A PROJECTG SIGN MEASURING
EIGHT SQUARE FEET IN AREA. THE SECOND AND THIRD SIGNS ARE WALL SIGNS MOUNTED TO FILL THE TRANSOM SPACE ABOVE THE
ENTRANCE. >> I'M SORRY FOR INTERRUPTING YOU, BUT I WANT TO JUST, WHAT WAS THE FIRST SIGN AGAIN? >>> IT'S THIS -- >> IT'S THE -- >> THE BLADE SIGN. >> THE BLADE SIGN.
>> AND THEN THE SECOND AND THIRD SIGNS ARE WALL SIGNS. 29.33 SQUARE FEET IN AREA EACH FOR A TOTAL OF 58.66. THE PROPOSED TOTAL FOR THE TWO WALL SIGNS AND PROJECTING SIGN IS 66.67 SQUARE
FEET WITH THE ALLOWED MAXIMUM OF 54. WHEN ANALYZING A SIGN VARIANCE, SEVERAL FINDINGS MUST BE MET, AND STAFF DOES NOT FIND THAT PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES EXIST IN COMPLYING WITH THE ORDINANCE DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY, WHICH
SUPPORT THE REQUESTED VARIANCES TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM SIGN ALLOTMENT FOR TWO WALL SIGNS AND A BLADE SIGN. THE INTENT OF THE ON PREMISE SIGN REGULATIONS IS TO ALLOW EFFECTIVE SIGNAGE APPROPRIATE TO THE PLANNED CHARACTER OF EACH ZONING DISTRICT TO PROMOTE AN
ATTRACTIVE ENVIRONMENT BY MINIMIZING VISUAL CLUTTER AND CONFUSION, TO REVERSE ADVERSE IMPACTS ON NEARBY PRORTIES AND PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE. THE PROPOSED SIGNAGE IS COMPATIBLE FOR THE CM2 ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH IS INTENDED TO ACCOMMODATE SMALL,
MODERATE, AND LARGE SCALE COMMERCIAL USES. THIS FINDING IS MET. THE APROPOSED SIGNS WOULD NOT ALTER THE CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE LOCALITY INCLUDING RESIDENTL AND COMMERCIAL USES ALONG THE GOODS AND SERVICES CORRIDOR. THE PROPOSED SIGNS WOULD NOT
INCREASE OR LEAD TO VISUAL CLUTTER, AND THE PROPOSED SIGNS ARE COMPATIBLE IN SIZE, SHAPE, MATERIALS, COLOR, ILLUMINATION AND CHARACTER WITH THE FUNCTION AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE ONE-STORY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. WITH THAT, STAFF
RECOMMENDS THAT THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ADOPT STAFF FINDINGS AND DENIES THE VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM SIZE ALLOCATION FROM 54 TO 66.67 SQUARE FEET. I WILL STAND FOR QUESTIONS. >> OKAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. ARE THERE
QUESTIONS OF STAFF? YES. >> I'M SORRY. >> PLEASE. >> TALKING TO -- THANK YOU. IT WAS A REALLY GOOD PRESENTATION, AND I REALLY --UT I'M JUST, I'M JUST TROUBLED HERE BECAUSE OF YOUR ENDIECE WHERE YOU TALKED ABOUT IT DOESN'T DO VISUAL CLUTTER, IT'S COMPLIANT,
IF FITS IN THE PLAN CHARACTER AND MORE IMPORTANTLY SOMETHING THAT THE APPLICANT SAID IN THE LETTER WAS THAT, AND WITH THE PICTURE SHOWS IS THAT THIS IS A DESIGN THAT'S ACTUALLY MADE TO GO FROM END TO END OF THE BUILDING. I MEAN, THIS, THIS IS THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING, WHETHER IT WAS RIGHT OR WRONG
WHEN IT WAS DONE. AND SO, AND I'M LOOKINGT THE, THE STATE FARM SIGN THAT THEY SHOWED. WAS THAT STATE FARM SIGN EXISTING AND THAT'S GOING AWAY AND NOW THIS -- SO, IF THIS WAS TWO SEPARATE PROJECTS, IF FOXY DOGS
WAS ONE ENTITY AND GROOMING WAS ANOTHER ENTITY, THESE SIGNS WOULD BE ALOACKED? >> YES. >> OKAY. SO IT'S JUST THE FACT THAT IT HAPPENS TO BE ONE BUSINESS THAT WE'RE SAYING THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED? I'M GOING
TO HAVE A HARD TIME WITH WHY WE'RE NOT ADJUSTING THIS ONE. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING BUT WHEN THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING IS SORT OF MADE TO DO THIS, THAT EXTRA 12 SQUARE FEET, WHICH IS LITERALLY IF I TAKE THAT 12, THAT MEANS IT'S JUST THREE SQUARE FEET I MEAN WE COULD TAKE IT OFF THE SIDES OF THE EDGES, BUT THE STRUCTURE IS
BUILT FOR THIS, AND IF IT WAS TWO SEPARATE BUSINESSES, WE WOULD ALLOW THIS. >> MM-HMM. >> SO WE SHOULD ASK THE BUSINESS TO CREATE TWO SEPARATE BUSINESSES AND THEN IT WOU BE ALLOWED, RIGHT? >> OR SHRINK THE SIGNS AND COMPLY WITH WITH THE LOCATION.
>> YEAH, I APPRECIATE WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS THAT ARCHITECTURALLY THIS, WHATEVER IT WAS, 1960s BUILDING WAS BUILT TO DO THIS, AND IT DOESN'T, AND IT FEELS LIKE THE PLAN CHARACTER VISUAL CLUTTER AND COMPLIANCE IS THERE WITH THE
ACTUAL BUILDING. OKAY. YOU'VE ANSWERED MY QUESTION THOUGH, THAT IF IT WAS TWO SEPARATE BUILDINGS WE WOULD ALLOW IT OR TWO SEPARATE BUSINESSES, WE WOULD ALLOW IT. SO IT'S JUS THE FACT THAT IT'S ONE BUSINESS WE'RE NOT ALLOWING IT. OKAY, THANK YOU, I'M SORRY TO RAMBLE. >> MM-HMM. >> YOU KNOW, I WANT TO FOLLOW UP
ON BOARD MEMBER GRABS GRANS KORSH AND ASK STAFF, I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION, I'VE BEEN ON THE BOARD FOR A WHILE, THAT A BUILDING HAD A SIGN BUDGET, AND IT WAS NOT BASED ON BUSINESSES.
SO IF THAT BUSINESS, IF THAT BUILDING WAS TWO, TWO STORIES TALL, IT WOULD HAVE, AND THERE WAS A BUSINESS UPSTAIRS? AND DOWNSTAIRS. THERE WOULD BE A TOTAL SIG BUDGET FOR THAT
BUILDING, SO I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED RIGHT NOW TOO. >> MR. ELLIS, CAN YOU HELP PROVIDE SOME GUIDANCE?
>> BECAUSE I KNOW WE HAV HEARD THAT TYPE OF REQUEST IN THE PAST. >> AND CHAIR PERRY, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, YOU HAVE ALL OF THE NUMBERS IN MY HEAD AND ABLE TO -- TO KIND OF YOUR POINT, YEAH, LIKE THE OVERALL SQUARE
FOOTAGE OF SIGNAGE IS BASED ON THE OVERALL SIZE OF THE BUILDING AND THEN THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS THE ABILITY TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE EACH INDIVIDUAL TENANT HAVE THEIR MAXIMUM AMOUNT. WE HAVE TWO SEPARATE SORT OF FALLBACKS. IF THERE IS A SECOND FLOOR TENANT, THEY CAN HAVE A SEPARATE
ALLOTMENT, AND IF THERE IS, AND A GROUND FLOOR TENANT, YOU KNOW, EVEN IF ALL OF THE ALLOTMENT ISD TO HAVE A 30 SQUARE FOOT SIGN OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES. I DON'T REMEMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. I CAN LOOK IT UP IF THE BOARD IS CURIOUS. SO IT'S, IT
IS BASED ON THAT, AND SO IN THIS CASE, THE ALLOTMENT IS OVER WHAT WE WOULD NORMALLY DO. BUT I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHEN WE SAY TWO SEPARATE USES, THEY EACH GET THEIR OWN MINIMUM, SO THAT PUTS THEM OVER THAT ALLOTMENT SO WE'RE LOOKING TO GO FROM 54 TO, YOU KNOW, IT'S
54 SQUARE FOOT. EACH HAVE A TOTAL OF 60. SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT WOULD ACTUALLY MAKE IT ALL THE WAY TO THE 66 SQUARE FOOT WOUL BE SUFFICIENT IF THEY WERE TWO SEPARATE USES. >> PROBABLY WOULD NOT. >> YEAH, BUT DID THAT HELP?
>> IT ANSWERED MY QUESTION. IT IN TRYING TO BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE HAVE DONE IN THE PAST, WOWITH SIGNAGE ON BUILDINGS WHERE THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE BUSINESSES. >> SO IT WOULD STILL BE OVER THE ALLOTMENT.
>> YES. >> BUT ACCORDING TO THE OVERALL, IF I MIGHT, THE BUILDING IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S FOUR SEGMENTS TO THIS BUILDING. SO WE ARE PENALIZING THIS ONE OWNER WHO
HAS TWO OUT OF THE FOUR, I MEAN, BY THAT THEORY THEN WE SHOULD BE GOING TO THE OTHER TWO, WHICH YOU HAVE IT IN FRONT OF US, BUT WE SHOULD BE GOING TO THE OTHER TWO BUSINESSES THEN. AND THEY SHOULD ALL BE REDUCED IN SIZE. I MEAN, AGAIN, I GO BACK TO THIS
IS, THIS AREA IS DESIGNED FOR THIS, AND TO DO IT SMALLER TO ME IS INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE THIS WAS THE DESIGN, WHETHER WE AGREE WITH IT OR NOT. AYBE WE CAN SAY THAT THE ACTUAL SIGNAGE THEN
IS THE PART THAT'S THE FOXY DOGS PART AND THE GROOMING PART WHERE THIS CIRCLE OF RED IS. CAN THAT BE CONSIDERED THE SIGNAGE THEN? JUST THAT PART? >> THAT IS -- >> AND THEN THEY'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE A COLOR BEHIND IT? >> IF THEY LEAVE THE SIDES ON
HEREIT IS PART OF THE SIGN. IT IS A METAL PLATE ESSENTIALLY. THE SIGN IS A METAL PLATE. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT. >> SO IF THEY WERE TO REDESIGN IT AND JUST MAKE THE CIRCULAR PART AS YOU ARE RECOMMENDING, THEN THEY MAY COMPLY. >> I'M NOT TRYING TO DESIGN IT.
I'M JUST TRYING TO SAY THAT IT SEEMS THAT WE ARE, WE'VE GOT, WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT, THERE IS A, THERE IS A SIGNAGE PART IN THIS BUILDING, AND THE OTHER TWO PLACES ALSO HAVE SIGNAGE THEN.
>> MM-HMM. >> SO THE, THE PART THAT'S IN RED ON BOTH THE GROOMING AND THE FOXY DOGS PART, THAT ACTUALLY IS THE ACTUAL SIGNAGE, AND THEN THE OTHER PART IS JUST BACKGROUND. >> I --
>> SO CAN'T WE JUST CONSIDER THAT AS THE ACTUAL SIGNAGE. >> I DO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, AND I APPRECIATE THAT. HOWEVER, THAT IS NOT HOW THE ZONING CODE IS DESIGNED TO MEASURE SIGNAGE. >> OKAY. >> SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO, WE
ANALYZE WHAT IS PRESENTED, AND THEY HAVE PRESENTED AETAL PLATE WHICH REACHES FROM ONE END TO THE OTHER IN THISRANSOM, SO THAT IS WHAT WE NEED TO MEASURE. SO IF THEY WANT TO SUBMIT A DIFFERENT DESIGN AND WE MEASURE
THAT ACCORDINGLY, THEY MAY FALL WITHIN THE ALLOCATION. >> AND I WILL JUST ADD HOPEFULLY NOT MAKE THINGS MORE CONFUSING, THERE WAS A CASE THAT WE HAD WHERE THERE WERE PAW PRINTS ON
THE SIDE OF A BUILDING, AND WE DIDN'T JUST TAKE THE, WHERE THE PAW PRINT, A PAY PRINT AND ANOTHER PAW PRINT. IT WAS A RECTANGULAR SIZE WHERE ALL THE,
WHERE ALL THE PAW PRINTS WERE ENCASED. SO SIGN CODE IS ALWAYS INCREDIBLY FRUSTRATING, I'LL JUST SAY THAT. YES, MR. ELLIS. >> I WILL NOTE THOUGH WE DID HAVE A -- WE HAVE RECENTLY AMENDED THE SIGN CODE TO TRY TO
MAKE THINGS A LITTLE BIT SIMPLER, AND WE ARE CONTINUOUSLY WORKING ON THINGS. THE ONE FOR EXAMPLE THAT CHAIR PERRY IS MENTIONING WOULDN'T BE CAUGHT UNDER THE CURRENT CODE TODAY BECAUSE -- WELL, BECAUSE OF THE TYPE OF SIGN. WE'RE KIND OF DEREGULATING PAINTED WALL SIGNS AS A TYPE OF SIGN. YOU KNOW
BECAUSE IT RARELY, THERE'S NOT A LOT TO BE GAINED ON A FROM A REGULATORY STANDPOINT ON THAT. BUT YOU KNOW, TO YOUR POINT, BUT WE STILL HAVE IN PLAY THAT DRAW THE LARGE BOX AROUND IT IS STILL IN CODE. >> OKAY. >> SIGN CODE IS STILL KIND OF CONSERVATIVE ON THAT.
THE SIGN CODE CAN ALWAYS BE DIFFICULT. WE CAN'T DISPLAY A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, FREEDOM OR INTERPRETATION WITH ANYTHING JUST BECAUSE SIGNAGE IS ALSO YOU KNOW CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED. IT'S A FORM OF FREE SPEECH, AND SO WE'RE VERY STRICT ON HOW WE CAN REGULATE IT AS IT COMES DOWN
FROM THE SUPREME COURT, SO WE TEND TO BE VERY STRICT IN HOW WE INTERPRET THINGS TO NOT OPEN UP US TO SOME SORT OF LAWSUIT. >> OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I SEE NONE. THANK
YOU. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? >> YES. >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO GIVE TESTIMONY? O LIKE I SAID BEFORE, YOU GET 10 MINUTES, AND THEN THAT LITTLE THING GOES OFF. AND WE ASK YOU TO WRAP UP. IF YOU COULD GIVE YOUR NAME AND
ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. >> OKAY. >> DO YOU NEED HELP GETTING THAT SET UP? >> I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THE SKETCH BACK UP HERE IF I COULD.
>> I'M KELSI SHARP. MY PERSONAL RESIDENCE IS 4407 NORTH HUMBLE AVENUE IN NORTH MINNEAPOLIS. I RUN SHARP SIGNS A SIGN COMPANY IN SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS. WE WORK WITH CLIENTS ALL OVER THE TWIN CITIES. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME
I'VE EVER APPLIED FOR A VARIANCE. I TRY TO AVOID THAT PROCESS BECAUSE I'M WORKING WITH SMALL BUSINESSES AND JUST COMING BEFORE YOU TODAY IS A HUGE EXPENSE TO TRY TO GETHIS PROJECT ADVANCED. SO YEAH, I THINK ONE OF THE POINTS THAT I
WANTED TO MAKE, AND I THANK YOU GUYS FOR EVEN READING THE NDINGS THAT I SUBMITTED. I JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THAT I'M TRYING TO BE CONSISTENT WITE BUILDING. THERE'S A MEXICAN RESTAURANT IN THAT BUILDING THAT HAS TWO ILLUMINATED BLADE SIGNS,
SO HUGE FABRICATED BLADE SIGNS IN ADDITION TO THEIR OWN MONUMENT SIGNAGE THAT THEY HAVE. THERES PANOTHER RESTAURANT THAT HAS TWO SIGNS EXACTLY THE SIZE THAT I'M PROPOSING, AND THEY HAVE A ROOF SIGN ON THE BUILDING. AND SO I THINK JUST LIKE WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A
TENANT IN THIS SPACE WHO IS LIKE SPEAKING IN THE SAME CONVERSATION AS THESE OTHER TENANTS, WHOSE SIGNS ARE SPEAKING IN ALL CAPS IN BOLD, ILLUMINATED, THEIR SIGNS ARE DOING A LOT, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO MATCH THAT ENERGY AND ALSO CREATE SOMETHING TASTEFUL. SO I
WOULD ALSO SAY THAT THIS SIGN IS HANDPAINTED SO IT'S ON A METAL PANEL BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHI BENEATH IT, BUT IF IT WAS JUST GOING TO BE HANDPAINTED DIRECTLY ON THIS BUILDING, IT WOULD BE PAINTED AT THIS EXACT SAME SCALE, RIGHT, AND IT WOULDN'T HAVE EVEN REQUIRED A PERMIT AND CERTAINLY NOT A VARIANCE. SO I
THINK THAT THAT'S LIKE THESE ARE LIKE JUST SOME OTHE THINGS THAT I WOULD URGE YOU TO CONSIDER. AND YEAH, I THINK, I AGREE THAT IF THESE WERE TWO SEPARATE TENANTS, THEY COULD'VE HAD SIGNS AT ABOUT THIS SIZE.
WHAT ELSE? SO YEAH, AND I THINK THAT SOME OF THE POINTS WERE MADE THAT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOTMENT THAT THEY'RE ALLOWED, IT DOESN'T ADDRESS THE LETTER HEIGHT AT ALL. YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE THE SIGNS REALLY ARE
REASONABLY, THE LETE LETELETERLING ISERING -- LETTERING IS APPROPRIATE TO A SIGN OF THIS SCALE FOR LEGIBILITY RIGHT, SO THAT TRAFFIC PASSING, PEDESTRIAN AND CAR TRAFFIC, CAN JUST READ THIS SIGN EASILY. THIS IS THE RIGHT SIZE. BUT BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO FILL THOSE EXISTING TRANSOMS, THAT COLOR FIELD IS THE SQUARE
FOOTAGE THAT'S PUTTING US OVER. AND THEN LIKE SOME OF YOU ALL MENTIONED TRE ARE A TON OF CHANGES THAT ARE COMING UP TO THE SIGN ORDINANCES. ONE OF THS THAT A TENANT LIKE THIS WOULDN'T EVEN HAVE TO PULL A PERMIT IF
SHE WAS MATCHING THE SIZE OF THE PREVIOUSLY EXISTING SIGN THERE. WHICH IS WHAT SHE'S DOING. SHE'S LITERALLY JUST MATCHING THE SIZE OF THE AMERICAN FAMILY HOME INSURANCE OF THE BEST AMERICAN STEAKHOUSE SIGNS THAT WERE ALREADY THERE. SO I THINK THAT KNOWING THAT THAT CHANGE IS COMING UP, HOPEFULLY IN THE NEXT, YOU KNOW, YEAR, S MONTHS, I THINK THAT IT'S
IMPORTANT TO TRY TOTART TO, YOU KNOW, GET THE CITY COMFORTABLE WITH MAKING THESE TYPES OF CONSSIONS. SHE'S LIT REAL JUST MATCHING THE EXISTING -- LITERALLY JUST MATCHING THE EXISTING SIGN. I DON'T KNOW IF THE SIGN TT AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE HAD, CAME FROM A DIFFERENT ERA, BUT WE'RE JUST USING THE FRAME THAT
WAS, THEY HAD ALREADY INSTALLED IT ONTO THE BUILDING SO THESE BLANK SIGN FRAMES ARE THERE, AND THAT'S THE SCAFFOLDING THAT WE ARE TRYING TO HANG THESE SIGNS ON. IT'S NOT LIKE OH, MAKE THE SIGN SMALLER BECAUSE THAT EXISTING FRAMEWORK IS ALREADY BEHIND THE SIGNS. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? AND I THINK THAT THERE'S PHOTOS OF WHAT THAT
BLANK SCAFFOLDING LOOKS LIKE ON THE BUILDING AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS BECAUSE SHE HAS, SHE'S CURRENTLY OPERATING IN THIS ADDRESS ALSO, SO IT'S LIKE, YOU KNOW, URGENT THAT SHE GETS SIGNAGE AT THIS LOCATION. YOU KNOW, LIKE SHE'S REQUIRED TO HAVE SIGNAGE. AND SHE'S ALREADY
PAST THE TIME THAT SHE WILL BE HAVING HER BANNERS UP. SO YEAH, I HOPE THAT JUST LIKE HIGHLIGHTING THAT POINT ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE'RE HANGING THIS ON AN EXISTING FRAME, THESE FRAMES COST MONEY, I HOPE THAT THAT DEMONSTRATES A PRACTICAL
DIFFICULTY. SHE WOULD HAVE TO REFABRICATE A NEW SMALLER FRAME WHEN THERE IS ALRDY A FRAME THERE. AND THEN I THINK THE LAST THING THAT I WOULD JUST SAY FOR YOU ALL IS I'M COMING BEFORE YOU FOR THE FIRST TIME. I DON'T DO THIS OFTEN AS A SIGN DESIGNER, AND SIGN INSTALLER FOR
MANY SIGNS IN THE TWIN CITIES. I HOPE THAT YOU CONSIDER THAT WE'RE JUST TRYING TO CREATE SOMETHING THAT IS CLEAN AND AESTHETICALLY PLEASING, AND YOU KNOW, YEAH, REALLY JUST TRYING TO MATCH A TON OF OTHER EXISTING CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. >> OKAY. >> THANK YOU.
>> WELL THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? I SEE NONE. THANKS FOR COMING DOWN. >> YEAH, AND THEN I JUST ALSO WANTEDO, I'M THE APPLICANT, BUT THE PROPERTY OWNER IS ON BOARD WITH MAKING THESE CHANGES TO THE BUILDING, AND THE TENANT
WHO IS THE BUSINESS OWNER, IS ALSO HERE, AND SHE CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS AS PERTAINS TO HER DAILY FUNCTION IN THIS SPACE AND THE BIT MAYBE QUESTIONS I CAN'T ANSWER. >> SURE. WE'LL GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY. >> THANK YOU. >> OKAY. SO AS I SAID,
EVERYBODY SUBSEQUENT TO THE APPLICANT GETS TWO MINUTES TO TALK, SO IS THERE ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR? COULD YOU GIVE YOUR NAME AND DRESS FOR THE RECORD, SIR? >>> MY NAME'S PETER RICKMYER. I
LIVE ON 25TH AND PENN NORTH. FIRST OF ALL, I SUPPORT THE APPLICANT'S APPLICATION. THE ONE THINK THAT I WANT TO STATE IS THE OVERALL LIGHTING IN THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS IS TOO BRIGHT. IT'S HARMING THE
ENVIRONMENT. AND SO THE ONE THING THAT I D IS ON -- I WENT AT THE HIGHWAY 30 -- HIGHWAY 35W AND WAKE STREET BUS ON TOP, AT
NIGHT, AND THE LIGHTS ARE BLINDING YOU EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE ABOVE THE BUILDINGS. THE LIGHTS ARE GOING UPWARD. AND SO WHEN YOU TAKE A LOOK A THE APPLICATIONS AND THE LIGHTING,
IF YOU COULD REQUIRE SHIELDING SO IT'S NOT SO THE LIGHT DOESN'T ILLUMINATE THE SKY, WHICH DOES NOTHING, EVEN FOR SECURITY. IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. SO I'M REQUESTING THIS BOARD TO MAKE SURE YOU LOOK AT HOW THE
LIGHTING IS AND TO MAKE SURE IT'S NOT ILLUMINATING THE SKY BECAUSE IT HARMS THE ENVIRONMENT. IT RUINS LIKE THE BEES AND THE BIRDS. THEY GET
DISORIENTED. AND SO ANYWAY, I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. >> OKAY. I'LL JUST PASS ALONG TO YOU, SIR, THAT WE ARE NOT THE BOARD TO TALK TO ABOUT THAT. WE DON'T MAKE DECISIONS LIKE THAT. YOUR CITY COUNCILPERSON IS THE
PERSON YOU WANT TO TALK TO. >> AND TO THAT, I WOULD HAVE TO SAY THAT THIS BODY HAS MORE POWER THAN WHAT ITHINKS BECAUSE THIS BODY HAS THE RIGHT TO MAKE AND THE SUGGESTION IS THAT THE LIGHTING DOES NOT
ILLUMINATE ANYTHING ABOVE THE BUILDI WHERE THE LIGHT IS. SO YOU CAN ACTUALLY PUT THAT RIGHT INTO A PLAN THAT YOU'RE APPROVING. AND SO WHEN YOU TALK TO STAFF, THEY CAN PUT IT IN, AND THEN YOU CAN APPROVE IT. I'M JUST SAYING THAT DON'T
DISCOUNT THE AMOUNT OF POWER THAT YOU HAVE. >> OKAY. >> OH, I'M BUZZING. SEE YA. THANK YOU. >> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST
THE APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE. LET'S CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. BOARD COMMENT? YES? >>> BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE ACTUAL WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER THE
SIGN BACKING GOES FROM END TO END HERE AND CREATES THE LARGER NUMBER OF THE 66 FEET, WHEREAS THE ACTUAL SIGN BECAUSE IT'S HAND PAINTED IS LESS THAN, IS LESS THAN THE 66 FEET, EXCUSE
ME, 66 SQUARE FEET, I WOULD SAY THAT WE SHOULD BE APPROVING THIS VARIANCE BECAUSE IT MAKES SENSE THAT YOU HAVE A CONSISTENT BACKING THAT GOES FROM ONE
CORNER OF THE STRUCTURE TO THE OTHER JUST LIKE THE OTHER SIGNS ON THE OTHER THREE, OR THE OTHER TWO BUILDINGS. SO I'M MAKG A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THIS VARIANCE BASED ON THAT FACT THAT
THE ACTUAL SIGNAGE, THE ACTUAL, WITHIN THE ORANGE OR RED NUMBER THAT SAYS THE ACTUAL LETTERS IS THE ACTUAL SIGN. AND SO BASED ON THAT, I WOULD ASK THAT WE APPROVE THIS SIGN. >> OKAY, THERE IS A MOTION TO
NOTWITHSTANDING STAFFRECOMMENDAE VARIANCE REQUEST. IS THERE A SECOND? IS THERE A SECOND? >> MAY I -- MAY I ASK A QUESTION OF STAFF?
>> SURE. >>> OKAY. WOULD, WOULD THIS METAL PLATE BE ALLOWED WITHOUT SIGNAGE ON IT, LIKE, WOULD THIS BE ALLOWED ALMOST LIKE A ONE-TWO STEP THING? WOULD THIS BE ALLOWED AS AN ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE WITHOUT SIGNAGE ON IT, AND THEN BECAUSE I KNOW --
BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THE HAND PAINTED SI IS MEASURED DIFFERENTLY THAN THE METAL IS? LIKE I DON'TNOW IF YOU SEE WHAT I'M GETTING AT, BUT AND MAYBE I'M, I DON'T KNOW, I'M TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO GET TO
THIS. THAT'S MY THOUGHT . IF THESE PIECES OF METEDDAL ALREADY EXIST -- METAL ALREADY EXISTS AS JUST A FEATURE OF THE BUILDING AND THEN THEY BUILT IT ON TOP OF AN EXISTING AREA, WOULD BE JUST BE COUNTING THE HAND PAINTED PART?
>> IT WOULD -- >> CHAIR PERRY, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. UNDER THE CURRENT REGULATIONS, YEAH, IF THAT WAS TRULY AN ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE, IF IT WAS WALL OR OTHER FORM OF WALLING, AND THEN THAT WAS TREATED AS A PAINTAL WALL SIGN, IT WOULD BE -- PAINTED WALL SIGN, IT WOULD BE ALLOWED. BUT IT'S A SEPARATE SEPARATE, YOU KNOW, THAT'S COME BEFORE US. I
UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT AND THAT CAN BE SOMETHING YOU CAN, THE BOARD CONSIDERS. >> I'M GOING TO SECOND THE MOTION. >> OKAY, IT'S MOVED AND SECONDED. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? WILL THE CLERK --
OH, YES. >> THANKS, EVERYBODY. I'LL SAY I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST THE MOTION, AND I THINK -- UNFORTUNATELY, DESPITE OUR FRIEND THAT JUST TALKED TO US, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THAT MUCH
POWER SOMETIMES, AND I THINK THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OUTSIDE OF OUR PURVIEW TO BE ALLOWING THIS. I THINK THAT IT'S PRETTY, LIKE I THINK IT'S ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS, AND IT JUST -- YOU KNOW, DESIGN DOESN'T HAVE TO
BE AS BIG AND I CAN'T FIND A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY TO ACTUALLY HAVE FINDINGS. AND THAT'S PEOPLE CAN DISAGREE WITH ME, BUT THAT'S WHERE MY CONCLUSION I'VE COME TO. >> I AGREE WITH BOARD MEMBER INGRAHAM AS WELL BECAUSE THAT'S
THE PART THAT I'M STUCK ON IS WHAT IS EXACTLY THE CHALLENGE HERE BESIDES MAKING THE SIGN SMALLER. SO I WOULD ALSO AGREE WITH STAFF FINDINGS? >> MAY I TRY TO DO ONE MORE PLEA
HERE BECAUSE I THINK IN THE WORLD OF ADJUSTMENT, WHEN YOU HAVE TWO PILLARS HANGING DOWN AT A STOREFRONT, IT IS EASIER TO CONNECT FROM ONE SIDE TO ANOTHER, AND SO WHEN THERE IS A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY, IF YOU TRY TO HANG IT DIFFERENTLY, IT CAN
BE -- ALL YOU NEED IS A JOINT TO CONNECT IT ON EITHER SIDE, SO IT IS A HUGE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY TO MAKE IT SMALLER WHEN THE BUILDING WAS BUILT FOR THAT, AND IT CONSISTENTLY, I MEAN, THEY SHOWED US THE PREVIOUS OWNERS. I MEAN, AND THE, AND I'VE BEEN TOLD THAT THE OTHER TWO ARE DOING THE SAME
THING. WHERE IT GOES FROM ONE SIDE OF THAT WALL TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WALL. SO I DO THINK IT IS A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY, SO CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. YEAH. >>> NO, I APPRECIATE THAT. I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE LAST
PICTURE, IT'S POSSIBLE TO HAVE ONE-HALF THAT UP. AND SO IT'S JUST -- IT IS POSSIBLE IT'S NOT, SO I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T THINK THERE ENOUGH THERE PERSONALLY. >> I'M SORRY. CAN YOU CLARIFY THE LAST PICTURE? >> SO IN THE BOARD REPORT, THE LAST PICTURE, YOU SEE THE
AMERICAN FAMILY, AND I THINK IT'S POSSIBLE TO DO HALF OF IT IN DIFFERENT WAYS. I DON'T KNOW, I'M NOT -- THERE MIGHT BE AN EXPENSE TO IT, SOMETHING LIKE THAT ONCE AGAIN, ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS AND, I JUST DON'T THINK THERE IS ENOUGH THERE. >> CAN I ADD SOMETHING? I THINK BOARD MEMBER GRANS KORSH MAY
HAVE ACTUALLY SWAYED ME. I WILL POINT OUT THAT IN THE PAST, WITH THESE SORT OF VARIANCES, IT HAS BEEN STRUCTURE WHERE WE'VE BEEN STUCK ON. BUT TREES US USUALLY SWAY US, AND I WILL NOTE THAT BECAUSE OF THETRUCTURE,
RIGHT NEXT TO THIS PARTICULAR PIECE AT THE END OF THE LOT, THERE ARE TWO TREES. SO LET'S SAY, IN A DIFFERENT SU SCENARIO, WE DECIDE TO COMPLETELY REDESIGN THE BUILDING AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO DEMOLISH THESE TWO TREES, WHICH IS A NATURAL FEATURE O THIS
LOT, SO THIS WOULD BE A PRACTICAL CHALLENGE IN WHICH IS WHY I THINK NOW THAT I WOULD GO AGAINST STAFF FINDINGS AND WOULD SUPPORT BOARD MEMBER GRANS KORSH'S MOTION.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT. WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? >> EICHOLZ. >> AYE. >> GRANS KORSH. >> AYE. >> INGRAHAM. >> NAY.
>> SMRIKAROVA. >> AYE. >> WANG. >> AYE. >> THERE ARE FOUR AYES AND ONE NAY. >> SO THAT REQUEST IS APPROVED. GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECT AND YOUR BUSINESS, YOUR NEW LOCATION OF YOUR BUSINESS. THAT'S GREAT
TO HEAR. I KNOW THAT CORNER VERY WELL, AND YOU BRING A LOT TO IT. WE HAVE ONE THING LEFT -- WE HAVE TWO THINGS LEFT. ARE THERE ANY UPDATES? >> CHAIR PERRY, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD,ES, THERE'S ONE UPDATE ON AN APPEAL THAT WENT TO THE
BUSINESS HOUSING AND ZONING COMMITTEE AND THEN TO COUNCIL FROM AN EARLIER AGENDA BACK IN OCTOBER SINCE THE NOVEMBER MEETING WAS -- EARLIER NOVEMBER MEETING WAS CANCELED. 2821 BROOKWOOD TERRACE WHERE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HAD
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT ON OR WITHIN 40 FEET OF THE TOP OF THE STEEP SLOPE. THAT WAS APPEALED BY A NEIGHBOR. IT WAS DENIED AT COMMITTEE AND AT FULL COUNCIL AND THE BOARD WAS UPHELD. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. AND NOW
LET'S VISIT OUR NUMR 11, WHICH IS THE TRANSITION SCHEDULE APPROVAL OF THAT. WE DON'T REALLY -- I'LL JUST INTRODUCE THIS. AS YOU KNOW, WE DON'T
HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER THE SCHEDULE. WE'RE, I WISH THAT GUY WAS STILL HERE. [LAUGHTER] BECAUSE WE HAVE NO POWER OVER THE SCHEDULE. SO I WOULD -- I WOULD ENTTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE TRANSITION SCHEDULE.
>> SO MOVED. >> IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> OKAY. AND I WILL JUST I THINK I CAN JUST SAY ALL IN FAVOR, INDICATE BY SAYING AYE. ANY AGAINST? ANY ABSTENTIONS? THAT MOTION PASSES, AND WE HAVE
THESE FOUR DATES TO MEET. >> CAN I ASK A QUESTION OF STAFF? >> YEAH. >> THEY CONFIRMED THAT WE'RE NOT LEAVING THIS BUILDING? AND WE'RE NO LONGER MEETING IN THE CASTLE? >> CHAIR PERRY AND BOARD MEMBERS, I WOULD LEAVE THAT UP TO THE CLERK'S OFFICE. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE HE BEEN ANY SPECIFIC CHANGES. I KNOW THEY
PLAN TO KEEP US IN HERE FOR AN EXTENDEDERIOD OF TIME. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S FOREVER, BUT IT WILL BE FOR T FORESEEABLE FUTURE AS I UNDERSTAND IT. >> SO I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION BECAUSE I TAL TALKED TO THE CLERK LAST NIGHT ABOUT THIS VERY
MATTER, AND HE TOLD ME THAT WE ARE NOT GOING BACK. THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS NOT GOING BACK. NONE OF THE QUASI-JUDICIAL BOARDS ARE GOING BACK TO WHERE THEY WERE. AND THE MAIN REASON IS THAT THE, WE
HAD THIS HAPPEN SEVERAL TES DURING OUR TIME IN HERE IS THE COUNCIL COMMITTEES WERE MEETING AND THEY WERE RUNNING LONG. THEY HAD TO CONTINUE THEIR MEETINGS BECAUSE OUR MEETINGS
WERE TIME CERTAIN TO START, AND SO THIS IS BUILT OUT, AND THAT'S THE WAY IT'S GOING TO BE. SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE -- >> YEAH, THEY CAN HAVE TWO -- >> THE CLERK DOESN'T HAVE TO
TAKE T HEAT HERE. >> SO THAT WE CAN HAVE, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC MEETINGS AT THE SAME TIME. >> RIGHT. >> ALTHOUGH -- >> I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE TECHNOLOGY THAT WILL TELEVISE THEM. THAT WILL BE INTERESTING TO ME. BUT THEY'RE WORKING ON THAT. >> I MEAN, MY ONE COMMENT ABOUT
WHERE WE'RE MEETING TOO IS ACCESSIBILITY KNOWING THAT WE'RE ON AIR IS, YOU KNOW, WITH HOW HIGH THESE COUNTERS ARE IS ACCESSIBILITY FOR SOMEBODY WHO CANNOT ALWAYS BE ELEVATED OR IN INSTANCES WHERE I CANNOT WALK,
IT WOULD SURELY NOT BE VERY ACCOMMODATING ME. >> THAT'S A SERIOUS ISSUE. MAYBE, MAYBE YOU CAN RETURN THAT BACK TO MR. CARL. >> ABSOLUTELY, I CAN SEND THOSE
COMMENTS BACK TO MR. CARL. >> OKAY. WITH THAT, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN. >> SO MOVED. >> SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR? WE ARE ADJOURNED.